Does Love win, in the end? Rob Bell seems to think so; his evangelical brethren are up in arms, however, about his controversial ideas. But Bell makes at least one good point about the standard depiction of God in much of Protestantism, as a God from whom one must be saved.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Unfortunately, his Universalist theology gets in the way of his good points.. I purchased one of his books before I found Orthodoxy...and it promptly found its way into our Goodwill bin. Along with a book from Brian McLaren. I had a (thankfully short) interest in the whole Emergent/Progressive movement when it first started talking about living out an authentic gospel life. Then I found the Authentic Gospel Holy and Catholic Orthodox Church, and there are no more interests in any other silly movements.

Unfortunately, his Universalist theology gets in the way of his good points.. I purchased one of his books before I found Orthodoxy...and it promptly found its way into our Goodwill bin. Along with a book from Brian McLaren. I had a (thankfully short) interest in the whole Emergent/Progressive movement when it first started talking about living out an authentic gospel life. Then I found the Authentic Gospel Holy and Catholic Orthodox Church, and there are no more interests in any other silly movements.

How do you know he's a univeralist? (And how are you defining "universalism"?)

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

I will freely admit that I rank him as a Universalist (meaning that in the end, all are saved regardless by one way or another), based purely on my own observations of the various writings, articles, and interviews of and by Bell. I am not the first to say so, and doubt I will be the last. I do apologize if that seemed combative, totally not my intent...I simply have found his teachings, along with others in his same vein, to be seriously lacking and at times dabbling into heresy. On the positive side, it is incorrect theology such as this that ran me out of protestantism and into the Truth of Holy Orthodoxy.

Odd, seeing as how Universalism is still a legitimate theological opinion.

I am indeed young in the Faith...but do you imply that Universalism is in line with Orthodox teaching? I am not referring to the hope that all "may" be saved...I do believe that the Lord God may indeed have mercy upon whom He wills it...it is not my place to say otherwise. I was under the impression though that someone can't live anyway they want to, and still avoid Hell....this may be some of my previous protestant beliefs kicking up in me. Lord have mercy!

I was under the impression though that someone can't live anyway they want to, and still avoid Hell....this may be some of my previous protestant beliefs kicking up in me. Lord have mercy!

You are correct. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

For Universalism to be the eventual reality that is revealed at the Final Judgment, all of us will have to have become conformed to the Gospel principles.

Also, it's possible that some will inherit the tormented fate at their particular judgment but somehow be turned around by the time of the Final Judgment, therefore "going to Hell" once they die, but not eternally so.

Does Love win, in the end? Rob Bell seems to think so; his evangelical brethren are up in arms, however, about his controversial ideas. But Bell makes at least one good point about the standard depiction of God in much of Protestantism, as a God from whom one must be saved.

Interesting observation.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Does Love win, in the end? Rob Bell seems to think so; his evangelical brethren are up in arms, however, about his controversial ideas. But Bell makes at least one good point about the standard depiction of God in much of Protestantism, as a God from whom one must be saved.

Interesting observation.

This does indeed tend to be the majority Evangelical/Protestant understanding. A close friend of mine recently became a catechumen after walking out of a church service where the previous months of sermons were leading up to the the final, conclusive sermon of what the "Gospel" was really all about.

Conclusion: the Wrath of God.

The Gospel is that we are law-breakers whose only just penalty is death. Our salvation is the fact that Jesus died in our place, absorbing all of God's wrath on our behalf.

Saying that Jesus suffered the wrath of God at all sounds to be heretical.

For God was so P.O.d at that world, that He had His only begotten Son tortured to death, and since then He feels so much better.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Saying that salvation is theosis, that Hell is union with God without cooperation (i.e. resistance/obstinacy), and then to top it all off with universal salvation is idiotic.

The Universal Salvation model is just as horrific as double predestination: it makes us all robots.

The reason that all of the evil is allowed to permeate and corrupt the world is so that our choice can exist, and this is what makes us in the image and likeness of God: our freedom of will (along with other things like creativity).

If everyone is forced to experience salvation and serve God, then all of the evil that exists in the world right not is not justifiable and God is a monster for letting it exist at all. Universal salvation takes man's free will out of the equation, and I reject it.

Saying that salvation is theosis, that Hell is union with God without cooperation (i.e. resistance/obstinacy), and then to top it all off with universal salvation is idiotic.

The Universal Salvation model is just as horrific as double predestination: it makes us all robots.

The reason that all of the evil is allowed to permeate and corrupt the world is so that our choice can exist, and this is what makes us in the image and likeness of God: our freedom of will (along with other things like creativity).

If everyone is forced to experience salvation and serve God, then all of the evil that exists in the world right not is not justifiable and God is a monster for letting it exist at all. Universal salvation takes man's free will out of the equation, and I reject it.

You are making the false assumption that universal salvation is not about everyone freely choosing to be united to God.

There are two types of heretical Universalism, IMO. The first is "generous Calvinist" universalism, in which God predestines all mankind for inevitable salvation (or that all men inevitably "choose" salvation because God designed them to). The second is that God will, at the end of time, force all men to reconcile with him.

These views both deny free will, and reduce the human to the subhuman. If Universalism is viewed as an inescapable (forced) inevitability, then the entire creation becomes, as Shakespeare wrote in Macbeth, "sound and fury, signifying nothing".

« Last Edit: March 03, 2011, 12:34:41 AM by NicholasMyra »

Logged

Quote from: Pope Francis

Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

No matter what I do in this life, I'll be saved anyway. So I'll just drop being a Christian and go into my sins.

Salvation is a process and universalism does not negate the reality that choosing sin making that process harder.

Universalism (at least the kind I would entertain) does not teach that you can just drop the striving and you will be magically whisked into Paradise. Paradise is still a concrete end of imitating Christ after a long process, and if you drop the striving now you will make that process significantly harder and longer and will subject yourself to temporary Hell.

He said "If everyone is forced to experience salvation and serve God" which, to me, made it clear what he meant by the term "Universalist".

Yes, but the fact that he referred to that simply as Universalism with absolutely no qualifications as to it being a particular type of Universalism indicates the assertion that that is all Universalism is.

No matter what I do in this life, I'll be saved anyway. So I'll just drop being a Christian and go into my sins.

Salvation is a process and universalism does not negate the reality that choosing sin making that process harder.

Universalism (at least the kind I would entertain) does not teach that you can just drop the striving and you will be magically whisked into Paradise. Paradise is still a concrete end of imitating Christ after a long process, and if you drop the striving now you will make that process significantly harder and longer and will subject yourself to temporary Hell.

How about this?

Universalism: the belief that it is in fact possible that all will eventually enter into the Life of Christ.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

No matter what I do in this life, I'll be saved anyway. So I'll just drop being a Christian and go into my sins.

Salvation is a process and universalism does not negate the reality that choosing sin making that process harder.

Universalism (at least the kind I would entertain) does not teach that you can just drop the striving and you will be magically whisked into Paradise. Paradise is still a concrete end of imitating Christ after a long process, and if you drop the striving now you will make that process significantly harder and longer and will subject yourself to temporary Hell.

How about this?

Universalism: the belief that it is in fact possible that all will eventually enter into the Life of Christ.

Yes. And as for the type that I am speaking of, possible through an act of free will. And at that I would go farther than to say that it is possible; I would say that it is probable.

It seems that deusveritasest is talking about ultimate reconciliation; while people will go to Hell, it is in Hell that they will work out their salvation. Such a view, in my opinion, is not heretical as it still requires the person to make a decision and to endure a process.

At the same time, such a view is problematic. For one, it assumes that people in Hell suddenly "get it" or will eventually "get it." But look at the rich man in the parable Jesus told us. The very first thing he was concerned about was himself. He wasn't apologetic, he wasn't contrite, he wanted water and he wanted that poor slob Lazarus to bring it to him. Then he wanted all of Heaven to bow down to his wishes and have Lazarus once again serve his desires by going to preach to the rich man's family.

What else is interesting in that passage is that Jesus mentions a great chasm between Heaven and Hell, one that cannot be crossed.

It would seem that Scripture does teach two things:

1) Those who are in Hell remain defiant 2) At the Great Judgment, even then some will remain defiant.

Will some people pass from Hell to Heaven at the Great Judgment, having served their time and learned? I don't know. Will we burn in Hell for eternity without Christ, even if we recognize our mistake? I don't know. The Scriptures say quite a bit about Hell without saying much; I think that is by design.

As for Rob Bell's beliefs proper, let me give you a fair warning about this from someone who is currently involved in this aspect of Protestantism (not as an emergent, but friends with quite a few):

I am a friend with the person who has been working with Bell for a few years now. He's spoken at his church a few times. What my friend believes and what many Emergents (especially the leadership) are starting to believe is that salvation is for every human...because there is no afterlife. For some it's an outright denial of an afterlife, for others it's extreme skepticism with them concluding that it ultimately doesn't matter.

For my friend in particular, in public he won't deny the resurrection, but instead skirts around it (after all, he'd out himself and wouldn't sell as many books), but in private he denies the resurrection of us, of Jesus, and denies what he calls the "metaphysical God." In other words, God only exists in your actions. This same friend has been a major influence on Bell the last few years.

Now, I don't think Bell will go this far in his book (my friend hasn't told me), but do keep in mind that this is the direction it's all heading (maybe not for Bell...yet). It's heading to a denial of our resurrection along with an afterlife at all; you die and that's it.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

It seems that deusveritasest is talking about ultimate reconciliation; while people will go to Hell, it is in Hell that they will work out their salvation. Such a view, in my opinion, is not heretical as it still requires the person to make a decision and to endure a process.

Are you saying the universal reconciliation is one thing, and universalism is another, completely different idea?

Quote

For my friend in particular, in public he won't deny the resurrection, but instead skirts around it (after all, he'd out himself and wouldn't sell as many books), but in private he denies the resurrection of us, of Jesus, and denies what he calls the "metaphysical God." In other words, God only exists in your actions. This same friend has been a major influence on Bell the last few years.

Now, I don't think Bell will go this far in his book (my friend hasn't told me), but do keep in mind that this is the direction it's all heading (maybe not for Bell...yet). It's heading to a denial of our resurrection along with an afterlife at all; you die and that's it.

I sense that a lot of Emergent/Emerging folk might tend towards what your friend tends towards, but I see that as a problem of Western, scientifically based civilization in general. Many modernist and liberal Protestants, of the early 20th-century, had similar tendencies towards non-supernaturalism, because of the advances made by the sciences in understanding the natural world in purely naturalistic ways. The fact that such people choose to remain Christian, in the face of both science and a lack of experience of the supernatural, says something about the power of Christianity in a positive way.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

The headline of the link is inaccurate, of course. Bell doesn't deny Hell in this book.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Does Love win, in the end? Rob Bell seems to think so; his evangelical brethren are up in arms, however, about his controversial ideas. But Bell makes at least one good point about the standard depiction of God in much of Protestantism, as a God from whom one must be saved.

Interesting observation.

Doesn't this basically reach its most obvious and famous in Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God?

Does Love win, in the end? Rob Bell seems to think so; his evangelical brethren are up in arms, however, about his controversial ideas. But Bell makes at least one good point about the standard depiction of God in much of Protestantism, as a God from whom one must be saved.

Interesting observation.

Doesn't this basically reach its most obvious and famous in Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God?

Yep. Jonathan Edwards' most famous sermon.

So, does Orthodoxy totally reject the idea that God can be wrathful?

« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 01:02:08 PM by Jetavan »

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Does Love win, in the end? Rob Bell seems to think so; his evangelical brethren are up in arms, however, about his controversial ideas. But Bell makes at least one good point about the standard depiction of God in much of Protestantism, as a God from whom one must be saved.

Interesting observation.

Doesn't this basically reach its most obvious and famous in Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God?

Yep. Jonathan Edwards' most famous sermon.

So, does Orthodoxy totally reject the idea that God can be wrathful?

Would be strange, since it is counter Biblical. But I've read and listened to Orthodox argue over this one. Frankly, I side on the non-Neo-Platonic Christians.

Does Love win, in the end? Rob Bell seems to think so; his evangelical brethren are up in arms, however, about his controversial ideas. But Bell makes at least one good point about the standard depiction of God in much of Protestantism, as a God from whom one must be saved.

Interesting observation.

Doesn't this basically reach its most obvious and famous in Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God?

For anyone who has not has the pleasure of reading the sermon, here is a scholarly reproduced text online:

Setting aside the absolutely agonizing opening question about Japan, this is what happens when you're divorced from Tradition. Suddenly, all the heresies variety of beliefs among early Christians means that it's okay today too.

It's funny that right afterwards, the interviewer asks him about Arius, who denied Christ's divinity. I have little doubt that Bell believes in Christ's divinity, but if one ancient heretic is okay, then why not another? Once you throw out the anathemas, then the ancient world becomes a free-for-all just like Protestantism is.

Setting aside the absolutely agonizing opening question about Japan, this is what happens when you're divorced from Tradition. Suddenly, all the heresies variety of beliefs among early Christians means that it's okay today too.

It's funny that right afterwards, the interviewer asks him about Arius, who denied Christ's divinity. I have little doubt that Bell believes in Christ's divinity, but if one ancient heretic is okay, then why not another? Once you throw out the anathemas, then the ancient world becomes a free-for-all just like Protestantism is.

Unlike that of Origen or Origenism, Arius' condemnation as heretic occurred during his lifetime.

Plus, there is evidence that the condemnation of Origen/Origenism (some 300 years after his death) was the work of a local council or a type of pre-council, and not that of the 5th Ecumenical Council itself.

In any event:

What is certain is that the Fifth Ecumenical Council was called exclusively to deal with a totally separate issue, and that nothing whatever is said about Origen or Origenism in the call of the council nor in any of the letters written in connection with it. It is also certain that the council was called by the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian I rather than the Church leadership because of the resistance of Pope Vigilius who refused to attend it, and that the official record of the council has no mention of the anathemas. Finally, it is certain that the only articles that Pope Vigilius later agreed to have no mention of the anathemas against Origen or his teaching.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Rob Bell is a bit of an Emerging puzzle, but then, the Emerging guys like to present themselves as puzzles. My sense is that on most issues his views are "orthodox" at least to the extent that they fit into someone's traditional position; on the other hand he seems to go out of his way to accommodate skeptical positions. For instance, in Velvet Elvis there is a passage early on about the Virgin Birth. It's clear that he accepts the doctrine, but he then more or less flees the notion of doctrine on the issue, asserting that it really doesn't matter.

But what's also telling about the passage is that it clearly shows that he is reading modernist/mainline-to-liberal theology, only he is so footnote-shy that it can be impossible to figure out who he is reading. He mentions the whole "almah" thing, and then trots out some theory about "born of a virgin" which he implies he got from someone else, and that someone surely has to be a modernist textual critic type of some sort; but there's no citation and the notion is hard enough to pin down that I haven't been able to find any source.

He's like McLaren in that (a) he is suffering from an allergic reaction to the more hard-edged (and often stupid) evangelicals and fundamentalists, (b) he is reading over on the liberal side of things and is more than a little embarrassed at the low standard of scholarship over in evangelical land (and it isn't always that low, but that leads us to the next point), and (c) he has a tendency to "wing it". I haven't seen signs yet of McLaren's tendency towards "just-so" explanations of how the early church went wrong, but perhaps it is only a matter of time, or perhaps he hasn't caught the Prophetic Voice bug.

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Saying that Jesus suffered the wrath of God at all sounds to be heretical.

For God was so P.O.d at that world, that He had His only begotten Son tortured to death, and since then He feels so much better.

another reason i'm not a christian

Well thats not a good reason not to be christian, as God doesnt get PO'd

More importantly, please explain footy = life

Are we talking association football? Some varient of "rugby"? Or the only legitimate referent: Australian Rules?

LOL Australian Rules, thats the only real footy in my world.

Awesome. Did you play? I got picked up by a pretty decent NA rec team (which means crap) to help fill out their line-up. Excellent sport. Knew nothing about the sport at the time. Was given dozens of video tapes and five times as many concussions before I even began to understand the rules.

How does the saying go:

Soccer, a game played gentlemen watched by hooligans. Footy, a game played by hooligans watched by gentlemen.

Saying that Jesus suffered the wrath of God at all sounds to be heretical.

For God was so P.O.d at that world, that He had His only begotten Son tortured to death, and since then He feels so much better.

another reason i'm not a christian

Well thats not a good reason not to be christian, as God doesnt get PO'd

More importantly, please explain footy = life

Are we talking association football? Some varient of "rugby"? Or the only legitimate referent: Australian Rules?

LOL Australian Rules, thats the only real footy in my world.

Awesome. Did you play? I got picked up by a pretty decent NA rec team (which means crap) to help fill out their line-up. Excellent sport. Knew nothing about the sport at the time. Was given dozens of video tapes and five times as many concussions before I even began to understand the rules.

How does the saying go:

Soccer, a game played gentlemen watched by hooligans. Footy, a game played by hooligans watched by gentlemen.

I currently play for a club called the Baton Rouge Tigers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, we play in the United States Australian Football League. I'm only 20, so I have time to grow in the sport.

Saying that Jesus suffered the wrath of God at all sounds to be heretical.

For God was so P.O.d at that world, that He had His only begotten Son tortured to death, and since then He feels so much better.

another reason i'm not a christian

Well thats not a good reason not to be christian, as God doesnt get PO'd

More importantly, please explain footy = life

Are we talking association football? Some varient of "rugby"? Or the only legitimate referent: Australian Rules?

LOL Australian Rules, thats the only real footy in my world.

Awesome. Did you play? I got picked up by a pretty decent NA rec team (which means crap) to help fill out their line-up. Excellent sport. Knew nothing about the sport at the time. Was given dozens of video tapes and five times as many concussions before I even began to understand the rules.

How does the saying go:

Soccer, a game played gentlemen watched by hooligans. Footy, a game played by hooligans watched by gentlemen.

I currently play for a club called the Baton Rouge Tigers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, we play in the United States Australian Football League. I'm only 20, so I have time to grow in the sport.

I played in the same league for a decent team over a decade ago. Was on a top notch soccer team. One of my team mates was playing professional arena football, he never played the sport when trying out, just a natural athlete. A guy came up to us after the game and asked if we ever heard of Australian rules football. Neither of us had and we joined them the next practice.

We were both rather big for soccer players at the time. I was 6' and 195#, but to really stand up to the beating I had to take in footy, I had to keep up around 210. I didn't have the skills to stay healthy any lighter.

Great sport. Didn't stay with it long. Hated maintaining that weight (and having to drop weight for other sport) and we had to spend a lot of time traveling and getting money to travel. And I left the States after the second year.

Great fun to play, but I don't care to watch it much.

Wish I had run into it when I was 20. Was a touch older and bit more beat up when I played around in the sport.

Best of luck. No sport came close to the level of conditioning required save maybe wrestling.